Are Newton´s asumptions really true?

Forums: Science, Physics, Idiot, Troll, Newton
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Are Newton´s assumptions really true?

here are the laws:

Quote:

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3]
Second law: F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object.
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body

.

I think there is something very wrong with them

Let´s start with the last one.

Quote:

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body

Is this really true? Is there good proof, or is it all just nonsense?

people really think a floor is pushing back????

I have to laugh

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 5,815 • Replies: 102

Explain why, with suitable mathematics, why you think Newton was wrong. or else shut up.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

They sound okay to me, Que, though relativity might introduce q's

0 Replies

How many more scientists are going to be questioned on A2K by dweebs? A few suggestions:

Galileo (The Sun goes round the Earth)
van Leeuwenhoek (Those bugs aren't tiny, they're just very far away)
Pasteur (Illness is caused by bad smells)
Clerk Maxwell (The speed of light is 38.66666 miles per hour)

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

How many more scientists are going to be questioned on A2K by dweebs? A few suggestions:

Galileo (The Sun goes round the Earth)
van Leeuwenhoek (Those bugs aren't tiny, they're just very far away)
Pasteur (Illness is caused by bad smells)
Clerk Maxwell (The speed of light is 38.66666 miles per hour)

All of them, why not?

e.g Pasteur was very very wrong with his theories.
In Maxwell's equations there are some variables missing

and so on and so forth

0 Replies

@contrex,

well, well well having some problems now?

If I don't say whay you like I have to shut up?

Hmmmm, you are funny indeed

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Hmmmm, you are funny indeed

Dick. Words are cheap.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

I wonder if Quehoniaomath can guess what would happen if the floor suddenly stopped pushing back.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

Dick. Words are cheap.

offcourse

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I wonder if Quehoniaomath can guess what would happen if the floor suddenly stopped pushing back.

you really, really think the floor is pushing back once you are standing on it?

Really?

Think about it!

You accepted a very strange thing indeed.

1 Reply

Quote:

The question I have about Newton is the following: Karl Marx supposedly didn’t write the Communist Manifesto but was the front man through which is was published. William Shakespeare was not the true author but the front man for the writing society under the guidance of Sir Francis Bacon. On that note, was Newton really the person to “discover” the calculus at his young age or was he the talented youth used to present age old knowledge to the world (by the “architects”)? I think I had heard at some point that Einstein was a front person too.

Just an idea offcourse. Wink

0 Replies

Something to ponder:

Quote:

Newton's third law is incorrect

It is not possible for there to be an "equal and opposite" re-action for every action. What there are, are "consequences" for every action, and or non-action. Consequences that may or may not be equal and opposite.

An example of this law is what happens if we step off of a small boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the opposite direction. If the boat is very small when we push against it, it will shoot away from us. A demonstration that the force returned was not equal, is the consequence of us falling into the water. This disproves Newton's theory, so long as the amount of force the person is exerting against the very small boat, is an amount great enough to propel them to the shore (and counter the effects of gravity) if an equal amount of force is returned. Again since the reactionary force is less than the initial force, the person falls in the lake.

In the time it takes for the forces to interact there is a split second where the forces are equal and opposite, but after that split second the forces are UN-equal and may or may not be opposite. It is in that instant that motion is achieved. If one force is not greater than the other motion will not be attained. The forces are NOT equal and opposite for anything more than the split second it takes for the greater force to overpower the lesser force, and attain motion.

More here:
http://mikelgroberts.hubpages.com/hub/Newton_was_Wrong_Again

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

You think about it. What would happen if instead of the floor pushing back, it gave way?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You think about it. What would happen if instead of the floor pushing back, it gave way?

He probably thinks it's turtles all the way down.

0 Replies

If I didn't believe in Newton's laws, I sure as hell wouldn't step on an airplane.

The people who design airplanes all believe in Newton's laws and use them daily.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If I didn't believe in Newton's laws, I sure as hell wouldn't step on an airplane.

The people who design airplanes all believe in Newton's laws and use them daily

Well, you see, you told us yourself, 'science' is a religion!

you 'believe'.

And well, that planes can fly doesn't mean that Newton is right offcourse, there might be completely other explanations.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You think about it. What would happen if instead of the floor pushing back, it gave way?

If you really think that are the only two options, you are being very silly,

0 Replies

Now here is a question, with regards to the 3rd law.

If someone keeps on walking on a part of a floor, then , according to this law,

the floor execrices an equal amount of force (F).

I do understand that the one walking on the floor exercises a force (Fa) on the floor, no problem there. he has eaten well and has enough power for a day. Wink

However, wiht regards of the force from the floor (F), why doesn't it diminish and where is it's powersource?????????

You see , it is in conflict with other 'physical laws' !!

Ah well, we know 'physics' is a bunch of garbage.

Physics doens't even see what's wrong with the 'theory' of why a light bulb works!

it's all crap

4 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

However, wiht regards of the force from the floor (F), why doesn't it diminish and where is it's powersource?????????

You really are just trolling.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

However, wiht regards of the force from the floor (F), why doesn't it diminish and where is it's powersource?????????

Here's an experiment for you that will quickly show you how the floor provides force. Walk across the roof of a 12 story building. Notice how you are held in place at that height. Now walk off the edge of the roof. Let us know your conclusions.

1 Reply

Are Newton´s asumptions really true?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know